> Anybody hear about the new cars? You buy them and you can only add one new component. After that, you've got to buy another one.
It's not "one component." More details are available on other sites regarding the precise requirements.
> Also, have you heard about the houses you can buy? You can only renovate them or add on to them one time. What?!? Doesn't make sense? That's because when you buy something you should be able to do what you want with it. The license is yours. When I buy a new car, I transfer my license the the new car. The license is mine.
Ironically, you often can't do what you want when you buy a house, because when you "buy" a house, you often don't own it! [The bank does.] Even more frequently, you cannot make significant alterations to a new car without invalidating their "free support!" If you buy a brand new BMW and slap a supercharger on it, you no longer have an valid warranty. ["But why? I own it, right? I can do whatever I want to it!"] Except property just isn't that simple in the real world; sometimes, it's not as cut and dried as we'd like it to be. There are these contracts which cover fair use and acceptable use and support and thousands of other things. Don't like it? Pay cash for your house, screw your car warranty, and use Linux. You have that right.
The fact is, you're not buying a house or a car, you're buying a software license. It's an agreement between you and the software manufacturer regarding how you can and cannot use the software they have licensed to you. You are free, if you do not agree to the terms of the license, not to buy it. You weigh the pros and cons of the contract and make a free decision. So weigh the pros and cons, and make your decision. And by all means, if you don't like the terms of a contract, encourage the manufacturer to alter it; just don't be so naive as to ignore its existence and pretend that you own Windows Vista.
It might be unfortunate, but it's also inevitable. As nice as it is of Google to make all sorts of nifty things for you to play with, they also have to do this thing called "making money," and cutting unprofitable or unnecessary projects is a necessary part of that.
Phrased in that way, this is true of all human endeavor. The only means you have to keep nations from invading are military, because obviously diplomacy and economics don't work. Except that they do. Economic sanctions don't have a great track record - working fully in only 33 percent of cases, I seem to recall, since 191x or so - but diplomacy has had some minor success, over the years, in keeping us all from killing each other.
Anyway, reliance on force as a means of coersion isn't unique to this situation, but it's also not applicable: we're talking specifically about the weaponization of space; that such means have not been endorced by this statement, specifically. Certainly, no one has ruled out using force as a means of coersion on the ground or in the air; I expect if someone started trying to blow up our assets in orbit, we'd be somewhat likely to use force.
For the record, in case no one noticed, I don't favor Bush or most of his policies. I hate most of what he represents. What I/do/ favor is intelligent, reasoned, informed discussion.
I'm actually pretty happy to see my prediction was pretty wrong: there's a lot of reasonable people replying, and not that many unreasonable mouth-frothing sorts. Happy day.
>...what could I ever write to sway the minds of those who still seem to love him, regardless of how much damage he does to our country and our world?
"Please take your medication! You're all crazy!":)
Seriously, all you can do is vote, and make sure everyone who agrees with you votes, and that they vote for the least lunatic person who's running for office. At least we can't get four more years of Bush...unless he changes that, too.
I know, that was a bad one. I'm a knob. But I couldn't find any way to say, "...add to the noise level of the internet" or "...worsen the signal-to-noise ratio of the internet" without making the text stilted. I shot for glib over pedantic, and I shouldn't have. I needed a better metaphor.
> Do you post the same comment in every politics.slashdot.org article?
No. I'm new to Slashdot. Thanks.
> You didn't actually make any comment at all...
Nope. I went off on a metadiscussion. I hope that doesn't bother you.
> If you want the moral high ground, why don't you read the full text of the new space policy (go here).
I did. [I'm new, and a metadebater, but I'm not hypocritical. Today.]
> You do realize that Bush (walking through a door left open by Clinton) is declaring that the US will do whatever it feels is necessary to defend its interests in space - including developing and deploying space weapons.
A direct quote from the policy paper reads:
"The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests," (quoted in the BBC article)
Nothing - nothing - in that says/anything/ about weaponizing space, and comments made since then have specifically stated that prevention of access to space does/not/ need to take the form of weaponization.
> I read it. Different rules for the US.
Then you didn't read it. It says nothing about other nations not being able to set the same rules.
> The US and its allies can have nuclear power, but not other countries it chooses to put on a list.
I personally think that's pretty ridiculous, as well - although an argument could be made that the US and the other nations allowed to have nuclear weapons by the UN are more stable and less likely to use or sell nuclear technology, but I don't think that's a great argument - but it has no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand.
>...there are consequences to all acts of unfairness.
Only inasmuch as there are consequences to all acts. Karma isn't real, no matter how much we might like it to be.
90 percent of the replies to this posting will be ignorant anti-Bush rhetoric regarding his plans to weaponize space, or destroy nation X or capability Y. My sincere hope - my challenge - is that those 90 percent will, in hopes of foiling my prediction, actually/read/ the text of the statement, and not presume to know what it means by reading headlines.
President Bush is a scary sort of moron, but this particular issue isn't one for which he should be demonized. Read the text, consider it,/then/ reply. Please don't add to the signal-to-noise ratio of the internet.
> Would someone who knows more about the science behind these projects explain why we're oh-so-far from someone putting a nanocomputer in my head and playing me like a video game to patrol the streets of New York City remotely?
We're not. Probably within your lifetime, depending on your age, and how often you step in front of busses.
Slashdot Mirror
> Anybody hear about the new cars? You buy them and you can only add one new component. After that, you've got to buy another one.
It's not "one component." More details are available on other sites regarding the precise requirements.
> Also, have you heard about the houses you can buy? You can only renovate them or add on to them one time. What?!? Doesn't make sense? That's because when you buy something you should be able to do what you want with it. The license is yours. When I buy a new car, I transfer my license the the new car. The license is mine.
Ironically, you often can't do what you want when you buy a house, because when you "buy" a house, you often don't own it! [The bank does.] Even more frequently, you cannot make significant alterations to a new car without invalidating their "free support!" If you buy a brand new BMW and slap a supercharger on it, you no longer have an valid warranty. ["But why? I own it, right? I can do whatever I want to it!"] Except property just isn't that simple in the real world; sometimes, it's not as cut and dried as we'd like it to be. There are these contracts which cover fair use and acceptable use and support and thousands of other things. Don't like it? Pay cash for your house, screw your car warranty, and use Linux. You have that right.
The fact is, you're not buying a house or a car, you're buying a software license. It's an agreement between you and the software manufacturer regarding how you can and cannot use the software they have licensed to you. You are free, if you do not agree to the terms of the license, not to buy it. You weigh the pros and cons of the contract and make a free decision. So weigh the pros and cons, and make your decision. And by all means, if you don't like the terms of a contract, encourage the manufacturer to alter it; just don't be so naive as to ignore its existence and pretend that you own Windows Vista.
It might be unfortunate, but it's also inevitable. As nice as it is of Google to make all sorts of nifty things for you to play with, they also have to do this thing called "making money," and cutting unprofitable or unnecessary projects is a necessary part of that.
Phrased in that way, this is true of all human endeavor. The only means you have to keep nations from invading are military, because obviously diplomacy and economics don't work. Except that they do. Economic sanctions don't have a great track record - working fully in only 33 percent of cases, I seem to recall, since 191x or so - but diplomacy has had some minor success, over the years, in keeping us all from killing each other. Anyway, reliance on force as a means of coersion isn't unique to this situation, but it's also not applicable: we're talking specifically about the weaponization of space; that such means have not been endorced by this statement, specifically. Certainly, no one has ruled out using force as a means of coersion on the ground or in the air; I expect if someone started trying to blow up our assets in orbit, we'd be somewhat likely to use force.
Yeah, there you go. You're what I meant.
/do/ favor is intelligent, reasoned, informed discussion.
For the record, in case no one noticed, I don't favor Bush or most of his policies. I hate most of what he represents. What I
I'm actually pretty happy to see my prediction was pretty wrong: there's a lot of reasonable people replying, and not that many unreasonable mouth-frothing sorts. Happy day.
> ...what could I ever write to sway the minds of those who still seem to love him, regardless of how much damage he does to our country and our world?
:)
"Please take your medication! You're all crazy!"
Seriously, all you can do is vote, and make sure everyone who agrees with you votes, and that they vote for the least lunatic person who's running for office. At least we can't get four more years of Bush...unless he changes that, too.
I know, that was a bad one. I'm a knob. But I couldn't find any way to say, "...add to the noise level of the internet" or "...worsen the signal-to-noise ratio of the internet" without making the text stilted. I shot for glib over pedantic, and I shouldn't have. I needed a better metaphor.
> Do you post the same comment in every politics.slashdot.org article?
/anything/ about weaponizing space, and comments made since then have specifically stated that prevention of access to space does /not/ need to take the form of weaponization.
No. I'm new to Slashdot. Thanks.
> You didn't actually make any comment at all...
Nope. I went off on a metadiscussion. I hope that doesn't bother you.
> If you want the moral high ground, why don't you read the full text of the new space policy (go here).
I did. [I'm new, and a metadebater, but I'm not hypocritical. Today.]
> You do realize that Bush (walking through a door left open by Clinton) is declaring that the US will do whatever it feels is necessary to defend its interests in space - including developing and deploying space weapons.
A direct quote from the policy paper reads: "The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests," (quoted in the BBC article)
Nothing - nothing - in that says
> I read it. Different rules for the US. Then you didn't read it. It says nothing about other nations not being able to set the same rules. > The US and its allies can have nuclear power, but not other countries it chooses to put on a list. I personally think that's pretty ridiculous, as well - although an argument could be made that the US and the other nations allowed to have nuclear weapons by the UN are more stable and less likely to use or sell nuclear technology, but I don't think that's a great argument - but it has no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand. > ...there are consequences to all acts of unfairness.
Only inasmuch as there are consequences to all acts. Karma isn't real, no matter how much we might like it to be.
90 percent of the replies to this posting will be ignorant anti-Bush rhetoric regarding his plans to weaponize space, or destroy nation X or capability Y. My sincere hope - my challenge - is that those 90 percent will, in hopes of foiling my prediction, actually /read/ the text of the statement, and not presume to know what it means by reading headlines.
President Bush is a scary sort of moron, but this particular issue isn't one for which he should be demonized. Read the text, consider it, /then/ reply. Please don't add to the signal-to-noise ratio of the internet.
> Would someone who knows more about the science behind these projects explain why we're oh-so-far from someone putting a nanocomputer in my head and playing me like a video game to patrol the streets of New York City remotely? We're not. Probably within your lifetime, depending on your age, and how often you step in front of busses.